Replacement Theology, which is also called “fulfillment theology” and “supersessionism” is a hermeneutical issue. Replacement theology is a departure from a consistent grammatical-historical hermeneutic. Many reformed and covenant theologians who adhere to the allegorical method of interpretation of Scripture hold to Replacement theology. This is so because, to believe that in one form or another the New Testament Church has replaced Israel, Old Testament Scriptures must be allegorized.
This paper will examine Replacement Theology as represented by a current proponent of Replacement Theology. Sam Storms is well known in some circles of evangelicalism. On his website, he describes himself as an Amillennial, Calvinistic, charismatic, credo-baptistic, complementarian, and Christian Hedonist. Storms is a past president of the Evangelical Theological Society, author of 40 published works, a contributor to such organizations as The Gospel Coalition, current President of Enjoying God Ministries, and former professor at Wheaton College.
At his website, Storms has written posts and authored Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative that on the surface present convincing arguments in support of replacement theology, although, he prefers what he calls fulfillment or inclusion theology:
And when I look at the relationship between Israel and the Church I see something similar to the relationship between the caterpillar and the butterfly. The butterfly doesn’t replace the caterpillar. The butterfly IS the caterpillar in a more developed and consummate form. The butterfly is what God intended the caterpillar to become. Likewise, the church doesn’t replace Israel. The church IS Israel as God always intended it to be. Let me explain that further. I believe that what we see in the NT isn’t the replacement of Israel but an expanded definition of who Israel is. During the time of the old testament, one was an Israelite (primarily) because one was a physical, biological descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. One’s ethnicity was the deciding factor. But with the coming of Christ and the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles, the meaning of what constitutes a “true Jew” has undergone revision, or perhaps a better word would be expansion. Not one believing Jewish person has been replaced. Not one believing Jewish person has been set aside or lost their promised inheritance.[1]
Storms writes: “The promises will not be fulfilled exclusively in and for a separate ‘nation’ of ethnic Israelites but in and for all believing ethnic Israelites together with all believing ethnic Gentiles, that is to say, in the Church.”[2] Israel is no longer the exclusive recipient of God’s prophecies in the Old Testament but now the church is also the recipient of not a literal fulfillment but an allegorized fulfillment (emphasis added).
On his website, Sam Storms: Enjoying God, he writes three posts on Israel, the Church, and Replacement Theology and in his book Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative (click to open), Storms uses the traditional texts that Replacement theologians employ to defend replacement theology. This paper will examine and answer these non-literal interpretations.
Michael Vlach writes that supersessionists advocate that the application of OT language shows that the church is now identified as the new Israel. This is Sam Storms’ primary approach to the texts he uses to support his view of Replacement theology. Michael Vlach presents five primary arguments of replacement theology and Sam Storms uses most of these in his defense of what he calls fulfillment or inclusion theology:
Five primary arguments are often used to support a supersessionist view:
1. National Israel has been permanently rejected as the people of God (Matt 21:43).
2. Application of OT language to the church shows that the church is now identified as the new Israel (Gal 6:16; Rom 9:6; 2:28–29; 1 Pet 2:9–10; Gal 3:7, 29).
3. Unity of Jews and Gentiles rules out a future role or function for national Israel (Eph 2:11–22; Rom 11:17–24).
4. The church’s relationship to the new covenant indicates that the church alone inherits the OT covenants originally promised to national Israel (Heb 8:8–13).
5. New Testament silence on the restoration of Israel is proof that Israel will not be restored as a nation.[3]
This paper will argue that this is a faulty method of hermeneutics by examining the key passages used in defense of Replacement theology.
Sam Storms contends that Galatians 3 is an argument for replacement theology:
In Galatians 3, Paul makes an astounding statement. He provides us with an inspired commentary on or interpretation of those OT passages.
In v. 16 he declares, “Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring [or, seed]. It does not say, ‘And to offsprings’ [or ‘seeds’], referring to many, but referring to one, ‘And to your offspring [seed],’ who is Christ.” Amazing! Here Paul unequivocally says that the “seed” or “offspring” of Abraham with whom God established his covenant and to whom the land and all its blessings were promised was ultimately only ONE of Abraham’s physical progeny, Jesus the Messiah! Jesus is “THE SEED” of Abraham whom God had in mind when he made his covenant promise.
Upon reading this one might think that the door has now been shut on everyone else, whether Jew or Gentile, and that only Jesus will inherit the promises. But just when you think that Paul has narrowed it down to one person and one person only, he throws wide open the gate into God’s kingdom blessings by saying at the close of Galatians 3, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. AND IF YOU ARE CHRIST’S, THEN YOU ARE ABRAHAM’S OFFSPRING [I.E., SEED], HEIRS ACCORDING TO PROMISE” (vv. 28-29).
Storms continues: Here is Paul’s stunning point: Jesus the Messiah is the one seed or progeny or offspring of Abraham to whom the promises were given. But, if you are “in Christ” through faith and thus belong to him, then you too “are Abraham’s offspring” or “seed” and thus you too are an heir of the covenant promises! This is why Paul can say “that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7) and that “those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith” (Gal. 3:9; cf. 3:14).
Storms continues. Paul’s conclusion is that in the final analysis one’s ethnicity has nothing to do with who will or will not inherit the promises. Neither does gender (“neither male nor female”) or socio-economic status (“there is neither slave nor free”). The only relevant criterion is whether or not you are related by faith to the one seed of Abraham for whom the covenant promises were intended. Are you “in Christ”? If so, you (regardless of ethnicity, gender, or social status) no less than he, are Abraham’s seed and thus the ones for whom the covenant was intended and in whom the covenant blessings will be fulfilled.[4]
My Response
Sam Storms takes what is similar in the Word of God and makes it identical or as Vlach writes: “Application of OT language to the church shows that the church is now identified as the new Israel.”[5] Storms argues that Abraham had one seed and that seed was Christ in Gal 3:16 but believers in Christ are also Abraham’s seed. Therefore, because believers are called the seed of Abraham, the church is the recipient of all promises given by God to Israel including the land promises.
The problem with this interpretation is that the seed of Abraham has multiple senses. Storms’ belief that what is similar is identical is not true to Scripture. Arnold Fruchtenbaum rebuts this view by noting that the term seed of Abraham has four different meanings.
First, it refers to the physical seed of Abraham...In the Old Testament, however, the term always refers to the physical descendants of Abraham who are Jews ….
Second, it refers to the Messiah who is the unique individual Seed of Abraham (Heb. 2:16-17).
Third, the believers today, the Church is the spiritual seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:29). This seed includes Jews who are physical descendants of Abraham and Gentiles who are not physical descendants of Abraham who have Abraham’s faith. The questions is: is the spiritual seed of Abraham ever called Israel? The answer is: No! The spiritual seed are partakers of Jewish spiritual blessings, but are never said to become partakers of the physical, material, or national promises.
Fourth, the term seed of Abraham is sometimes synonymous with the Remnant of Israel and is a reference to Jewish believers (Isa. 41:8; Rom. 9:6-7; Heb. 2:16). Only some of the spiritual seed then are truly Israel: the Jewish believers who are also part of ethnic Israel and the Israel of God. But the spiritual seed of Abraham as a unit is never referred to as Israel.[6]
What about Paul’s promise in Galatians 3:29 to believers today who “are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise?” Is Paul referring to the land promise that belongs to the church now? Is Paul saying that the church is also the recipient of all the Old Testament promises to Israel?
Charles Ryrie elaborates on the three different recipients of the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant. To Abraham, God made personal promises in Gen. 12:2: “I will make of you a great nation,” “I will bless you,” and “I will make your name great.” God has fulfilled these personal promises to Abraham.
God made national promises to Israel in Genesus. 15:18-21 when He promised Israel a specific land as an inheritance. Ryrie writes, “Israel has occupied at various times part of the larger area, but never the larger area, nor even as an everlasting possession.”[7] These promises will be fulfilled in the millennial reign of Christ.
God also made universal promises in Genesus 12:3. God promise to universally bless those that bless Israel and curse those that curse Israel. God promised that all families of the earth would be blessed through Abraham. This is the promise that Paul is stressing in Galatians three. Not the land promise to the nation of Israel, but the spiritual blessing of justification by faith which Paul is defending in Galatians three. Paul refers to the promise of universal spiritual blessing in Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:6-9. Paul states that “Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know you therefore that they who are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.” Paul is not saying that the church is now receiving all the promises made to Israel, including the land promise. Paul is only referring to the spiritual blessing of justification by faith. Next, Paul quotes the universal promise in 3:8: “And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In you shall all nations be blessed.”
Along with other replacement theologians, Storms uses Romans 9:6-7.
Storms argues. The context of this passage is Paul’s response to the charge that God cannot be trusted because so many Israelites, his “kinsmen according to the flesh” (9:3), are in unbelief. If God cannot be trusted to fulfill his covenant promise to OT Israel, how can he be trusted to fulfill any of his promises to the NT Church?
Or again, we could put it this way: If Israel is God's covenant people, to whom so many glorious privileges have been given (Romans 9:4-5), why are so few Israelites saved? Why are so many of them "accursed, separated from Christ?" Has God's word failed? Has God's covenant promise and eternal purpose come to nothing? Has the rejection of Jesus Christ by the majority of Israelites thwarted God's purpose? Have the trustworthiness and finality of God's word been undermined by the unbelief of so many Jews? His response to the question is a resounding No!
Storms continues his argument: If God's word of promise and covenant is that all ethnic Israelites, i.e., all those who are physically descended from Israel, are to be saved, then clearly his purpose has failed and his word is void. But Paul denies that God ever intended to save all ethnic Israelites. His purpose has always been to save a remnant within, but not the entirety of, ethnic Israel. This is the force of his declaration that “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (9:6).
There is an Israel within Israel, Storms contends. There is a spiritually elect remnant within the physical nation. John Murray sums up: "The purpose of this distinction is to show that the covenantal promise of God did not have respect to Israel after the flesh but to this true Israel and that, therefore, the unbelief and rejection of ethnic Israel as a whole in no way interfered with the fulfillment of God's covenant purpose and promise. The word of God, therefore, has not been violated" (10).
Simply put: Not every person who is a physically ethnic Israelite is a spiritually elect Israelite. Thus we see that the initial promise in Genesis 12 did not mean that all physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would be saved or inherit the blessings, such as the land, entailed by that covenant. We must remember, says Paul (with added paraphrase), that “not all who are descended from Israel [i.e., the physical seed] belong to Israel [i.e., the spiritual seed], and not all are children of Abraham [which is to say, heirs of the promise] because they are his [physical or ethnic] offspring” (9:6b-7).[8]
Storms concludes from this passage that those who are “spiritually elect” or the “Israel within Israel” are saved Gentiles today because God never intended for all ethic Israel to be saved. The problem with this view is that the covenant promises in the OT were not to all ethnic Israel but only to all believing Jews.
Vlach refutes this view: As Murray has noted, Rom 9:6 is teaching that “there is an ‘Israel’ within ethnic Israel.” Paul is not saying that believing Gentiles are now part of Israel. Instead, believing Jews are the true Israel. Sanday and Headlam state, “But St. Paul does not mean here to distinguish a spiritual Israel (i.e. the Christian Church) from the fleshly Israel, but to state that the promises made to Israel might be fulfilled even if some of his descendants were shut out from them. What he states is that not all the physical descendants of Jacob are necessarily inheritors of the Divine promises implied in the sacred name Israel.” Thus, Rom 9:6 offers no support for the supersessionist view.[9]
The next passage that Storms uses that is commonly used by Replacement theologians is Ephesians 2:11-22.
Storms writes: Perhaps the most explicit text is found in Ephesians 2. We’ve already seen in Romans 9:6-7 that simply being a physical descendant of Abraham does not guarantee that one is a recipient of the covenant blessings. One must believe in Jesus as the Messiah. Does this suggest therefore that only believers who are the physical progeny of Abraham are heirs of the covenant blessings? No. Look with me at Ephesians 2:11ff.
Storms writes, as I read this chapter I discover that because of the work of Christ the meaning of “Israel” has now expanded. No longer does it refer simply to the physical descendants of Abraham who believe in the Messiah. Certainly it includes them. But now Gentile believers are “no longer strangers” to the covenants of promise or “aliens” when it comes to the commonwealth of Israel, but are “fellow citizens” with them and “fellow heirs” of all the blessings of the covenant (see Ephesians 2:11-19 and 3:6).
Storms continues, contrary to how some have taken this, no one has been “replaced”. Rather, believing Gentiles have been “included”, such that now, as Paul says in Ephesians 2:14-15, there is only “one new man”, i.e., the Church.
Notice again that by virtue of his work Christ has created “in himself one new man in place of the two” (Eph. 2:15). This body, this new man, the Church, is the only true people of God who will inherit the promises made to Abraham. This one new man, the Church, consists of both believing Jews and believing Gentiles, both of whom are now co-heirs of all the promises.
How do we answer this argument? Paul is arguing for the unity of the body of Christ in Ephesians. He uses two doctrines as examples of perfect unity in chapters 1-3. The Trinity and the Church are perfect examples of unity. The doctrine of the Trinity is mentioned 8 times: 1:3-14; 1:17; 2:18; 2:22; 3:4-5; 3:14-17; 4:4-6; 5:18-20. The Trinity is Paul’s quintessential example of unity for the church to emulate.
The doctrine of the Church or the Body of Christ is also important because there is also perfect unity of Jews and Gentiles positionally in the body of Christ. The word "one" is mentioned by Paul 14 times in Ephesians. Jews and Gentiles, who were bitter enemies in the Old Testament, are now "one" (2:13-15).[10]
Even though God is “one” according to Deuteronomy 6:4, there are three unique Persons. The Trinity is not one person, which is the heresy of Modalism or Sabellianism. The same is true with the body of Christ in Ephesians in 2. Jews and Gentiles are one in spiritual standing in Christ. There is perfect unity positionally in the Body of Christ. But this does not erase the distinctions of Israel and the church.
Michael Vlach also makes this point. “In the realm of salvation blessings and status before God, Gentiles are equal with believing Jews. However, salvific unity between Jews and Gentiles does not erase ethnic or functional distinctions between the two groups.”[11]
In Galatians 3:28, Paul argues for the equality for those in Christ which does not destroy the distinctions of the same people: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Elsewhere, Paul will tell slaves to obey their masters. Just because both are equal spiritually in Christ, does not mean a first century slave could disobey his master. Being in Christ does not do away with male and female distinctions. In 1 Timothy 3:1, Paul stated that one of the requirements for pastors was that he be a “one woman man.” The same is true for Jews and Gentiles in Christ. In Romans 11:25-26, Paul makes clear that although Israel now is blind, their blindness is temporary “until the times of the Gentiles be come in.” When the Gentile dominance over Israel is over at the second coming of Christ “all Israel shall be saved.” Then Paul adds God’s promise in the New Covenant which was made exclusively with Israel in Jeremiah 31:31-37 will be fulfilled: “For this is my covenant unto them (Israel) when I shall take away their sins.”
In addition to Romans 9, Ephesians 2, and Galatians 3, Storms uses another passage commonly used by Replacement Theologians, which is Romans 11.
Storms writes: Much the same point is made in Romans 11 where Paul uses the imagery of the olive tree. Replacement theology would assert that God has uprooted and eternally cast aside the olive tree which is Israel and has planted, in its place, an entirely new one, the Church. All the promises given to the former have been transferred to the latter.
But this is not what Paul says. He clearly states that there is but one olive tree, rooted in the promises given to the patriarchs. In this one tree (i.e., in this one people of God) there are both believing Jews (natural branches) and believing Gentiles (unnatural branches).[12]
Storms’ interpretation is tainted by his theology. Paul is dealing with the nation of Israel in Romans 9-11. Paul asks the question in 11:1, “Has God cast away His people? No! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.” How much clearer could Paul have stated that he is discussing ethnic Israel. Next, Paul talks about the temporary condition of Israel being cut off from the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant symbolized by the Olive tree. “For if the casting away of them (Israel) be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?” (11:15). Paul distinguishes between the “natural branches”, that are broken off, again the context demands this refer to Israel, from the “wild branches” which are believing Gentiles. Paul makes clear that the “natural branches” are not the same as the “wild branches.” How can the church have replaced Israel or as Storms prefers to say, that these peoples of God are now one people of God. Storms concludes:
Together they constitute the one people of God, the true Israel in and for whom the promises will be fulfilled. This one people is, of course, the Church. Neither believing Jew nor believing Gentile has any advantage over the other. When it comes to inheriting the promises, which is inclusive of the “land”, they are co-heirs. Indeed, when it comes to inheriting the promises, ethnicity is irrelevant. The only relevant factor is one’s relationship to Jesus Christ by faith.
The answer to Storms: Paul concludes his argument that Israel has a future which is distinct from believing Gentiles who are enjoying the universal salvation blessings promised in the Abrahamic Covenant, which Paul argued earlier in Galatians 3. Paul continues to distinguish Israel from the church in 11:24-25: “For if you (believing Gentiles) were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted in contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, (believing Jews) which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own tree. For I would not, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own conceits, that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.” Paul has not made the two peoples of God the same.
Next, Storms misinterprets Hebrews 11
Where we left off is with the question of the ultimate disposition of the land that was included in the Abrahamic covenant. What becomes of that element in the promise?
I believe that promise will be literally fulfilled, but not merely (or even primarily) in the land of Canaan. It’s important we note that the initial covenant promises of the land of Canaan to Abraham (Gen. 12,13,15,17) undergo considerable expansion in Scripture, an expansion of such a nature that the ultimate fulfillment could only be realized on the New Earth. I find Anthony Hoekema’s description helpful. He refers to Gen. 17:8 and the land promise to Abraham, and says:
“Note that God promised to give the land of Canaan not just to Abraham’s descendants but also Abraham himself. Yet Abraham never owned as much as a square foot of ground in the land of Canaan (cf. Acts 7:5) – except for the burial cave which he had to purchase from the Hittites (see Gen. 23). What, now, was Abraham’s attitude with respect to this promise of the inheritance of the land of Canaan, which was never fulfilled during his own lifetime? We get an answer to this question from the book of Hebrews. In chapter 11, verses 9-10, we read, ‘By faith he [Abraham] sojourned in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he looked forward to the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.’ By ‘the city which has foundations’ we are to understand the holy city or the new Jerusalem which will be found on the new earth. Abraham, in other words, looked forward to the new earth as the real fulfillment of the inheritance which had been promised him – and so did the other patriarchs” (The Bible and the Future, p. 278).
And again:“When we properly understand biblical teachings about the new earth, many other Scripture passages begin to fall into a significant pattern. For example, in Psalm 37:11 we read, ‘But the meek shall possess the land.’ It is significant to observe how Jesus’ paraphrase of this passage in his Sermon on the Mount reflects the New Testament expansion of the concept of the land: ‘Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth’ (Matt. 5:5). From Genesis 17:8 we learned that God promised to give to Abraham and his seed all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, but in Romans 4:13 Paul speaks of the promise to Abraham and his descendants that they should inherit the world – note that the land of Canaan in Genesis has become the world in Romans,” (pp. 281-82).
As Hoekema noted above, a significant passage that addresses this issue is found in Hebrews 11. Let me begin with a question: How do we explain that when Abraham finally arrived in the land of promise he only sojourned there, “as an alien . . . as in a foreign land”? (Heb. 11:9, 13). Philip Hughes rightly asks: "In what sense could he be said to have received this land as an inheritance when it was a territory in which he led no settled existence and to which he had no claim of ownership?" (467). We need not speculate an answer, for the text provides its own in v. 10, "for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God."
What is this city? It is that city which God has prepared for them (v. 16), mentioned again in Heb. 12:22 as the "city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem." See also Heb. 13:14, where we read, "for here [that is, on this present earth] we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come." This surely refers to the heavenly Jerusalem of Heb. 12:22, the city which has foundations (v. 10). Note also Rev. 21:1-2, especially v. 2 where we read that John "saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God" (cf. 21:9-11). The reason, then, why Abraham was a sojourner and exile in Canaan was because he viewed that earthly land to be a type of the heavenly and more substantial land/country.
The point is that the patriarchs did not seek in the physical land of Canaan their everlasting possession. The focal point of the OT land promise was on land, to be sure, but on the heavenly land (Heb. 11:16) of the new earth with its central feature, the New Jerusalem.[13]
The answer to the replacement theologians’ dilemma’s is simple. These verses in Hebrews 11 do not say that the city which has foundations is the fulfillment of the land promises to Abraham, but simply that Abraham look forward by faith to eternity and did not dwell on his lack of material possessions.
Storms follows up on his interpretation of Hebrews: “The Abrahamic land promise, as well as prophecies such as Isa. 65:17; 66:22; 32:15; 35:2,7,10; 11:9, which speak of a restoration of the cosmos, are to be fulfilled on the new earth in the new creation, not on a millennial earth in the old one.”[14]
Isaiah 65:20 states that a child shall die a hundred years old. Do children die in eternity? Of course not. These are millennial prosperity promises when the Abrahamic land promise is fulfilled on earth in the Promised Land not the New Jerusalem in eternity. Reformed theologian, Wayne Grudem, in commenting on Isaiah 65:20 states a principle that several Old Testament passages seem to fit neither in the present age nor in the eternal state and therefore must be fulfilled literally in the future millennium.[15]
Storms briefly touches on Romans 2:28-29: ‘For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal’ (Rom. 2:28-29). That this ‘Judaism of the heart’ is not to be limited to believing Jews but includes believing gentiles is clear from Paul’s words to the Philippians: ‘For we are the true circumcision, who worship God in spirit, and glory in Christ Jesus’ (Phil. 3:3).[16]
Storm has totally ignored the context of Romans 2:17-30.
Fruchtenbaum has argued that ethnic Jews, not Gentiles, are the subject of the broader context of Rom 2:17–3:20: “The Romans 2:25–29 passage does not teach that Gentiles become spiritual Jews.” “Paul concluded his discussion of the Gentiles in Romans 2:16. In Rom 2:17–30 he considers the Jewish question.” Fruchtenbaum also argues that Paul, in Rom. 2:25–29, is making a distinction between believing and nonbelieving ethnic Jews: “He [Paul] distinguishes between Jews who do not believe and Jews who do believe. This is not a distinction between Jews and Gentils, nor between Israel and the church, but between the remnant and the nonremnant—between the Jewish believer and the Jewish unbeliever.”[17]
Sam Storms briefly refers to 1 Peter 2:9 in defense of what is his view of Replacement theology
This is why Peter can take those special privileges and titles reserved for OT Israel (Exodus 19:5-6) and apply them freely to the NT Church. This one new man, the Church, says Peter, is the “chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession” (1 Peter 2:9).[18]
Again, Storms has taken what is similar and made it identical. Here is another example of one of the arguments of the Replacement theologian where the application of OT language to the church shows that the church is now identified as the new Israel.
Vlach elaborates on this Replacement theology argument: I am not convinced that the application of “Israel” terminology to Gentiles means that Gentiles are now part of Israel. There are occasions in Scripture in which “Israel” imagery is applied to non-Israelites without these non-Israelites becoming Israel. Isaiah 19:24–25, for instance, predicts that Egypt would someday be called “my people.” Yet the context makes clear that Egypt is distinct from Israel since Egypt is mentioned alongside “Israel my inheritance.”[19]
Robert L. Saucy gives more details to this rebuttal:
Although the term “people of God” begins with the nation of Israel and has this predominant meaning throughout the Old Testament, there is already in the prophets the anticipation that some outside of Israel will come under its purview. Of the messianic days, Zechariah declares, ‘Many nations will be joined with the Lord in that day and will become my people’ (2:11). Isaiah also looks forward to the day when Egypt and Assyria, traditional historical foes of Israel, will become ‘the third party’ with her, and God will say, ‘Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance’ (19:24-25; cf. Zec 9:7: the Philistines will be ‘like a clan in Judah,’ NASB)....This fundamental unity in a relation to God through Christ does not remove Israel’s distinction as a special nation called of God for a unique ministry in the world as a nation among nations. Nor does it define the totality of the people of God a ‘Israel,’ requiring that the church is somehow a ‘new Israel.’[20]
Sam Storms uses Galatians 6:16 to teach Replacement theology
In his book Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative, Storms argues that the reference to “the Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 is just another text proving that the church is the recipient of the Old Testament promises made to Israel:
Paul has argued repeatedly that only faith in Jesus Christ is required. Indeed, he went so far as to describe Gentiles who believe in Jesus as the “offspring” or “seed” of Abraham (Gal. 3:16, 29) in and for whom the covenant promises are fulfilled. Thus, whether one is ethnically Jewish or ethnically Gentile is irrelevant to one’s status with God. One need only be “in” Christ, who is himself the One true seed or “offspring” to whom the promises were originally made.[21]
Storms mistakenly as was said in the discussion of Galatians 3:16, 29, lumps the national promise of land to Israel in the Abrahamic Covenant with the universal promise of salvation with all who believe as being fulfilled today. Storms quotes Tom Schreiner who overlooks the fact that even though all in Christ are spiritually equal, that truth does not do away with distinctions, such as between men and women, slaves and masters, and Jews and Gentiles.
As Tom Schreiner explains, it would be highly confusing to the Galatians, after arguing for the equality of Jew and Gentile in Christ (3:28) and after emphasizing that believers are Abraham’s children, for Paul to argue in the conclusion that only Jews who believe in Jesus belong to the Israel of God. By doing so a wedge would be introduced between Jews and Gentiles at the end of the letter, suggesting that the latter were not part of the true Israel. Such a wedge would play into the hands of the opponents, who would argue that to be part of the true Israel one must be circumcised.[22]
Galatians 6:16 is one of the most important texts for Replacement theologians. For example, S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. writes:
In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, there remains persistent support for the contention that the term Israel may refer properly to Gentile believers in the present age. Incidental support for this is claimed in such passages as Romans 2:28-29; 9:6; and Philippians 3:3; but the primary support is found in Galatians 6:16.[23]
Charles Ryrie concurred when he wrote “more frequently nondispensationalists use Galatians 6:15-16 to attempt to show that the church is the new, spiritual Israel.”[24]
Fruchtenbaum presents a powerful refutation in his Israelology to the claim that terms Israel and the church are interchangeable in the New Testament when he states that the word Israel is used seventy-three times in the New Testament and then proceeds to list all seventy-three references in the New Testament. When you read the seventy-three references to Israel, it is obvious that the two terms are not interchangeable. All the seventy-three listings refer to ethnic Israel.
The list is the total number of times that Israel is mentioned in the New Testament and it is obvious even to Covenant Theologians that the vast majority of the times it refers to national ethnic Israel. In fact, only three passages are used by Covenant Theologians to try to prove their Church-equals-Israel equation. On two of these, Romans 9:6 and 11:26, they are not unanimous, for even some Covenant Theologians see these verses as speaking of national ethnic Israel. The only one verse on which all Covenant Theologians are unanimous is Galatians 6:16. This is the one and only verse that even comes close to saying what Covenant Theologians want it to say.[25]
Michael Vlach sees Galatians 6:16 as another example of the application of “Israel” language to the Church by Replacement theologians and writes that “the primary text used to show that the church is called Israel is Gal 6:16.”[26]
Since Galatians 6:16, is the primary text used to defend Replacement theology, this paper will conclude refuting the claim that “the Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 is the church contrary to all other references to Israel in the New Testament.
In Galatians, Paul is defending the doctrine of justification by faith alone against the Judaizers who were persuading Gentile believers to put themselves under the law to earn salvation. So clearly in Galatians 6:15, Paul declares that salvation is not through Jewish circumcision but the power of God who makes those who trust Christ a “new creature.” “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything nor un-circumcision, but a new creature.” In Galatians 2:7-9, Paul identified two groups: Jews and Gentiles or the circumcision and the un-circumcision. The Jews and Gentiles in the two groups who responded to the gospel preached by Peter and Paul are now in Christ.
In Galatians 6:16, Paul pronounces God’s blessings on these two groups: “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” Paul refers to “them” and “the Israel of God.” Here is where the debate begins between replacement theologians and dispensational theologians. Is Paul referring to two different groups within the church or is he stating that both groups are the same? The question is, “who is the Israel of God?” If you are a replacement theologian your answer is the church. If you are a dispensational theologian, your answer is Jewish believers in the church which is not equal to the church.
S. Lewis Johnson in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost writes an excellent rebuttal of the Covenant and Replacement theology interpretation of Galatians 6:16. The name of the chapter is “Paul and ‘The Israel of God.’” In this chapter, Johnson rejects the view that “the Israel of God” in Galatians 6:16 can be the church for three reasons.
The first reason is grammatical. To interpret the “kai” [English “and”] as “even” so that “them” and “the Israel of God” are the same is to use the secondary meaning of kai and not the primary meaning which is “and.”
This is to use the explicative or appositional kai. Johnson provides a principle for this case:
It is necessary to begin this part of the discussion with a reminder of a basic, but often neglected, hermeneutical principle. It is this: in the absence of compelling exegetical and theological considerations, we should avoid the rarer grammatical usages when the common ones make good sense.”[27]
An explicative sense for kai may be found in Mark 1:19; Luke 3:18; 1:19; Luke 3:18; John 1:16; Rom 1:5; 1 Cor 2:2; 6:6–8; and Eph 2:8.[28]
The reason the common usage of kai is not used by Replacement theologians is because it does not fit their amillennial system.
Johnson mentions another impressive reason for rejecting on grammatical grounds the view that “the Israel of God” is the church. “If it were Paul’s intention to identify the ‘them’ as being ‘the Israel of God,’ then why not simply eliminate the kai after ‘mercy?’ The result would be far more to the point, if Paul were identifying the ‘them,’ that is, the church, with the term ‘Israel.’ The verse would be rendered then, ‘And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them and mercy, upon the Israel of God.’ A case could be solidly made for the apposition of ‘the Israel of God’ with ‘them,’ and the rendering of the NIV could stand. Paul, however, did not eliminate the kai. These things make it highly unlikely that the first interpretation is to be preferred grammatically. [29]
The second reason is exegetical.
Johnson explains what he means by exegetical: “Under this heading are covered matters of context, both general and special, and matters of usage, both Pauline and other.” Johnson makes his exegetical point when he states that “there is no instance in biblical literature of the term Israel being used in the sense of the church, or the people of God as composed of both believing ethnic Jews and Gentiles.”[30]
The context of Galatians helps us understand Galatians 6:16.
Exegetically the view is sound, since ‘Israel’ has its uniform Pauline ethnic sense. And further, the apostle achieves a very striking climatic conclusion. Drawing near the end of his ‘battle-epistle’ with its harsh and forceful attack on the Judaists and its omission of the customary words of thanksgiving, Paul tempers his language with a special blessing for those faithful believing Israelites who, understanding the grace of God and its exclusion of any human works as the ground of redemption.[31]
The context is on the side of the view that Paul was addressing Christian Jews with his “Israel of God” statement. Timothy George has pointed out that the “Israel of God” statement near the end of the epistle makes unlikely that Paul was including Gentile believers in the category of Israel. For George, this is an unlikely place to make a statement of such great theological significance: “It is strange that if Paul intended simply to equate the Gentile believers with the people of Israel that he would make this crucial identification here at the end of the letter and not in the main body where he developed at length his argument for justification by faith.”[32]
The third reason is theological.
There is no historical evidence that the term Israel was identified with the church before A.D. 160. Further, at that date there was no characterization of the church as ‘the Israel of God.’ In other words, for more than a century after Paul there was no evidence of the identification.”[33]
Ryrie notes: Historically, ‘the word of Israel’ is applied to the Christian church for the first time by Justin Martyr c. A.D. 160 in his Dialogue with Trypho, where the church is equated with the ‘true Israel’ (not labeled ‘the Israel of God as in Gal. 6:16).[34]
What Paul presents in Galatians 6:16 is consistent with his teaching in Romans 9 and 11 that there are two groups in the church: Gentiles and ethnic Jews. In Romans 9, Paul describes Israel’s past (not the church). In Romans 10, Paul presents Israel’s present state (not the church 10:1).
In Romans 11, Paul predicts Israel’s future (11:25-26). God is not through with Israel.
Because of a faulty method of hermeneutics, Storms perceives Israel in the Old Testament as the caterpillar and in the New Testament, the church as the butterfly. This is an insult to God’s chosen people, Israel. The caterpillar is ugly and inferior to the butterfly. Israel is not ugly nor inferior to the church. Throughout eternity these two peoples of God (Revelation 21:3) will be exalted and equal. Israel will be represented by the twelve names written on the twelve gates of New Jerusalem and the Church will be represented by the twelve names of the apostles on the foundations of New Jerusalem. Storms consistently takes what is similar in Scripture between Israel and the church and makes that identical so that there are not two peoples of God but one. What Storms has made into one God always keeps separate. Again, because of a faulty hermeneutic, Storms has emphasized the continuity of Israel and the Church to the point of no discontinuity.
Footnotes
[1] Sam Storms. Sam Storms Enjoying God. Replacement Theology or Inclusion Theology. November 1, 2017. Accessed October 2, 2018. https://www.samstorms.com/enjoying-god-blog/post/replacement-theology-or-inclusion-theology.
[2] Ibid.
[3] (Michael Vlach. Has the Church Replaced Israel (p. 141). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition).
[4] Sam Storms. The Church, Israel, “Replacement Theology. Part 1. Accessed October 8. https://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/post/the-church--israel--and--replacement--theology---part-1.
[5] Michael Vlach. Has the Church Replaced Israel, 141?
[6] Arnold Fruchtenbaum. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology (Tustin: Ariel Ministries Press, 1989) 702.
[7] Charles Ryrie. Basic Theology (Chicago: Moody, 1999) 527.
[8] Sam Storms. The Church, Israel, “Replacement Theology. Part 1. Accessed October 8. https://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/post/the-church--israel--and--replacement--theology---part-1.
[9] Vlach, Michael. Has the Church Replaced Israel (pp. 145-146)? B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
[10] Harold W. Hoehner’s commentary on Ephesians and D. Edmond Hiebert’s An Introduction the New Testament, Vol. Two (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002). 97-114.
[11] Vlach, Michael. Has the Church Replaced Israel (p. 154)? B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. [11] Vlach quotes C. B. Hoch, Jr. “Paul’s comments in Ephesians, however, exclude any salvific priority for Israel in the ecclesiological structure of the new man. . . . However, while there is no longer salvific advantage, there is still an ethnic distinction between Jews and Gentiles. Paul continues to speak of Jews and Gentiles as distinct ethnic groups in his letters (Rom. 1:16; 9:24; 1 Cor. 1:24; 12:13; Gal. 2:14, 15) (C. B. Hoch Jr., “The New Man of Ephesians 2,” in Blaising and Bock, Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, 118).
[12] Sam Storms. The Church, Israel, “Replacement Theology. Part 1. Accessed October 8. https://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/post/the-church--israel--and--replacement--theology---part-1.
[13] Sam Storms. The Church, Israel, “Replacement Theology. Part 1. Accessed October 8. https://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/post/the-church--israel--and--replacement--theology---part-2.https://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/post/the-church--israel--and--replacement--theology---part-ii.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Speaking of Jerusalem as some point in the future, Isaiah says:
No more shall there be in it an infant that lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the child shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed (Isa. 65:20).
Here we read that there will be no more infants who die in infancy, and no more old men who die prematurely, something far different from this present age. But death and sin will still be present, for the child who is one hundred years old shall die, and the sinner who is one hundred years old “shall be accursed.” The larger context of this passage may mingle elements of the millennium and the eternal state (cf. vv. 17, 25), but it is in the nature of Old Testament prophecy not to distinguish among events in the future, just as these prophecies do not distinguish between the first and second comings of Christ. Therefore in the larger context there may be mixed elements, but the point remains that this single element (the infants and old men who live long, the child dying one hundred years old, and the sinner being accursed) indicates a specific time in the future that is different from the present age (Wayne Grudem. Systematic Theology, (Leicester: Zondervan, 1994) 1127-1128.
[16] Sam Storms. The Church, Israel, “Replacement Theology. Part 1. Accessed October 8. https://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/post/the-church--israel--and--replacement--theology---part-2.https://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/post/the-church--israel--and--replacement--theology---part-ii.
[17] A. G. Fruchtenbaum, “Israel and the Church,” in Issues in Dispensationalism, ed. W. R. Willis and J. R. Masters (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 128.
[18] Sam Storms. The Church, Israel, “Replacement Theology. Part 1. Accessed October 8. https://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/post/the-church--israel--and--replacement--theology---part-2.https://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/post/the-church--israel--and--replacement--theology---part-ii.
[19] Vlach, Michael. Has the Church Replaced Israel (p. 149). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
[20] Robert L. Saucy. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993) 188, 190.
[21] Sam Storms. Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative (Kindle Location 3176). Christian Focus Publications. Kindle Edition.
[22] Storms, Sam. Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative (Kindle Locations 3180-3184). Christian Focus Publications. Kindle Edition.
[23] S. L. Johnson Jr., “Paul and the ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study,” in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, ed. S. D. Toussaint and C. H. Dyer (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 188).
[24] Charles Ryrie. Dispensationalism. (Moody: Chicago 1995) 128.
[25] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology, (Tustin: Ariel Ministries Press, 1989) 691.
[26] Vlach, Michael. Has the Church Replaced Israel (p. 143). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
[27] Johnson Jr, S. L. “Paul and the ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study,” in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, ed. S. D. Toussaint and C. H. Dyer, (Chicago: Moody, 1986) 187.
[28] Vlach, Michael. Has the Church Replaced Israel (p. 164)? B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
[29] Johnson, Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, 188.
[30] Ibid., 189
[31] Johnson, Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, 192.
[32] Vlach, Michael. Has the Church Replaced Israel (p. 144)? B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
[33] Johnson, Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, 191.
[34] Charles Ryrie. Dispensationalism (Moody: Chicago 1995) 128.
Bibliography
Blaising, Craig and Darrell Bock, Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
Cone, Christopher and James I. Fazio. Forged From Reformation: How Dispensational Thought Advances the Reformed Legacy. El Cayon: Southern California Seminary Press, 2017.
Fruchtenbaum, Arnold. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology. Tustin: Ariel Ministries Press, 1989.
_______________ “Israel and the Church,” in Issues in Dispensationalism, ed. W. R. Willis and J. R. Masters Chicago: Moody, 1994.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology, (Leicester: Zondervan, 1994).
Hiebert, D. Edmond. An Introduction to the New Testament, Vol. Two, Winona Lake: BMH Books, 1954.
Hoehner, Harold W. Ephesians. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.
Horner, Barry E. Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenge, Nashville, B&H Academic.
Hullinger, Jerry. From Ezra to Gnostic Devotions: The Importance of Interpretive Method, 2016.
Johnson Jr, S. L. “Paul and the ‘The Israel of God’: An Exegetical and Eschatological Case-Study,” in Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, ed. S. D. Toussaint and C. H. Dyer, Chicago: Moody, 1986.
McArthur, John. Why Every Calvinists Should be a Premillennialist, Part 1 and 2. May 25, 2007. Accessed October 1, 2018. https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-334/why-every-calvinist-should-be-a-premillennialist-part-1
Kent, Homer A. The Freedom of God’s Sons: Studies in Galatians. Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1976.
Ridderbos, Herman N. The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatian. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953.
Ryrie, Charles. Basic Theology. Chicago: Moody, 1999.
__________ Dispensationalism. Moody: Chicago 1995.
Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.
Showers, Renald E. The Coming Apocalyse. Gellmawr: The Friends of Israel, 2009.
Storms, Sam. Sam Storms Enjoying God. Replacement Theology or Inclusion Theology. November 1, 2017. Accessed October 2, 2018. https://www.samstorms.com/enjoying-god-blog/post/replacement-theology-or-inclusion-theology.
Storms, Sam. Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative (Kindle Location 3176). Christian Focus Publications. Kindle Edition.
Vlach, Michael. Dispensationalism. Los Angeles; Theological Studies Press, 2008.
____________ Has the Church Replaced Israel. B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
____________ TMSJ 20/1 Spring 2009) 57-69. Various Forms of Replacement Theology.